ORDER

The present criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner/de-facto complainant aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.07.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.493 of 2007 on the file of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad wherein and whereby the findings of the learned IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad dated 29.11.2007 in CC No.297 of 2002 i.e. convicting and sentencing the accused Nos.1 and 2/respondent Nos.1 and 2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of said fine amount to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 406 IPC, further sentencing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default of payment of said fine amount to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 420 IPC and also sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each , in default of payment of said fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC, were set aside.

2. Heard Sri S.Sidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing learned Public Prosecutor for the State/3rd respondent. Perused the record.

3. CC No.297 of 2002 was registered against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein for the offenses punishable under Section 406, 420 and 506 read with 34 of IPC on the strength of the complaint lodged by the petitioner and subsequent registration of FIR No.61 of 2002 alleging that they dishonestly induced the petitioner pretending that they were the owners of the house property bearing D.No.1-7-495/9, Dayara Market, Musheerabad, Hyderabad offered to sell the said property for Rs.9,50,000/- and obtained Rs.10,000/- as nominal advance, Rs.5,00,000/- as part of sale consideration, Rs.1,00,000/- towards purchase of stamp and registration charges and promised to register the property on 31.01.2002 and failed to keep up the said promise and when she questioned them, they threatened her with dire consequences to implicate her in criminal cases using their caste. PWs.2 to 4 witnessed the said transactions.

4. The defence of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the trial Court was that having failed in performing her part of contract with regard to the agreement of sale and having lost the suit in OS No.451 of 2002 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the petitioner initiated the criminal case against them. The trial Court, upon considering the material available it in the form of PWs.1 to 4 and Exs.P1 to P5 found the respondent Nos.1 and 2 guilty, convicted and sentenced them as stated above.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have preferred Criminal Appeal No.493 of 2007 before the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad contending that the trial Court has erroneously found them guilty without properly appreciating the evidence available on record and that the matter is of civil in nature and the findings of the trial Court with regard to Ex.P2 are not the case of the prosecution. The learned District Judge of the appellate Court, vide judgment dated 22.07.2008 allowed the said appeal by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court holding that the trial Court had erroneously failed to consider the fact that the civil Court found the petitioner faulty in acting upon the agreement of sale and that the petitioner, before purchase of the property, verified the documents and expressed her satisfaction regarding the title and found the respondent Nos.1 and 2 guilty, set aside the findings the